House Minority Leader Boehner & Senator McConnell - Repubs. that can Stop Obama-care

[wwswimming]

I have found the websites of both Boehner & McConnell, and have sent the email that I would have sent to Obama or Pelosi or Feinstein ... if they were listening.

This is the website I have put up on the subject -
http://ObamaCareNightmare.com/

I am completely opposed to Obama-Care because of the "Individual Mandate". I refuse to be forced to purchase "health insurance". It's my choice to go with "Cash on the Barrelhead" because it's far cheaper & I get far better care.

What Republican leaders are influential in the shaping (or stopping) of Obama-Care ?

Governors whose states are passing laws over-ruling the Individual Mandate - my understanding is that 30 states have such laws under consideration.

Other Representatives in the House, other Senators - which Republicans do you write if you want to stop Obama-care ?

 

[Carmen813]

I have found the websites of both Boehner & McConnell, and have sent the email that I would have sent to Obama or Pelosi or Feinstein ... if they were listening.

This is the website I have put up on the subject -
http://ObamaCareNightmare.com/

I am completely opposed to Obama-Care because of the "Individual Mandate". I refuse to be forced to purchase "health insurance". It's my choice to go with "Cash on the Barrelhead" because it's far cheaper & I get far better care.

What Republican leaders are influential in the shaping (or stopping) of Obama-Care ?

Governors whose states are passing laws over-ruling the Individual Mandate - my understanding is that 30 states have such laws under consideration.

Other Representatives in the House, other Senators - which Republicans do you write if you want to stop Obama-care ?

I understand your position. Can we just change the law that requires hospital emergency rooms to provide you care in case you have a serious illness or injury?

 

[Thump553]

wwswimming-do you know what ACTUAL health care costs are? Have you actually paid for a simple procedure like appendix removal, normal birth of a child, etc? I doubt it greatly. If so you would realize that you pay rates probably 30-50% HIGHER than those paid by insurers or Medicare (they force the providers down to "usual & customary" rates, you pay full frieght unless you go to trial, hire medical experts to dispute the charges and the judge or jury believe your experts over the plaintiffs).

Your "plan" sounds good on paper but it is pure BS. People like you will drift along then declare bankruptcy at the first broken arm or childbirth, and the rest of us pick up YOUR tab through even higher rates.

Only one state has acted on the attempts to outlaw federal individual mandates, and I say good luck with that in any case. Under our Constitution the federal law would clearly prevail over a conflicting state law-unless the currently wacky Supreme Court decides to throw out 200+ years of precedent.

You don't really have to write any Republicans in Congress-they already have their marching orders to oppose any and all attempts to reform health care, for the good of the GOP-not the people or the country.

 

[Craig234]

Not many realize that the individual mandates are originally a *Republican* invention, and were part of the Republican plan put forward when Clinton tried to pass healthcare.

http://www.wbur.org/npr/123670612

Republican Senator Hatch was just saying Republicans have never supported such mandates, and that the change to having them is at the price of liberty. He supported them during Clinton's effort.

 

[werepossum]

I understand your position. Can we just change the law that requires hospital emergency rooms to provide you care in case you have a serious illness or injury?

"Cash on the Barrelhead" does not equal unable to pay. Also, most things can be negotiated. My aunt, who has no insurance (she's self-employed and being near Medicare age has taken a calculated risk), recently shattered her wrist and negotiated her treatment costs and terms with an untreated shattered wrist. She received the same rates if not better as she would have with insurance because she paid within 30 days with little required paperwork.

My preference would be catastrophic health insurance as a baseline and everyone paying our basic health care costs out of pocket or via HSAs.

 

[Moonbeam]

I want to be able to drive my car without insurance. If I kill somebody I'll pay. I have 40 dollars to put on the barrel.

 

[senseamp]

That's modern day GOP for ya, they can scare and obstruct, but have no ideas of their own for dealing with this country's problems.
The problem is that a lot of uninsured stick everyone else with their health care costs when they can't pay, Democrat solution is individual mandate, not perfect, but GOP solution is to demagogue it to death while offering nothing.
I too am opposed to individual mandate without a public option, btw. I think if you are going to mandate people buy insurance, you have to offer a non-corporate option to them to obtain it and not just steer them into corporate claws. I also think if you have money set aside to be self insured, then you shouldn't have to buy coverage. It's even true for auto coverage here in CA, at least. It's either have liability coverage or have some set amount of money set aside in a savings bond or something to cover your risk.

 

[sportage]

One may be or may not be for an "Individual Mandate".
But I know one thing for dam certain. I DO NOT want to pay for WWSWIMMING's
emergency room medical bill just because WWSWIMMING refused to have insurance.
And as it stands now, that is "exactly" what has been going on with healthcare
and the uninsured. So what's so bad about fixing THAT thru reform? Remind me...

 

[senseamp]

One may be or may not be for an "Individual Mandate".
But I know one thing for dam certain. I DO NOT want to pay for WWSWIMMING's
emergency room medical bill just because WWSWIMMING refused to have insurance.
And as it stands now, that is "exactly" what has been going on with healthcare
and the uninsured. So what's so bad about fixing THAT thru reform? Remind me...

What's bad is that government fixing things is not what gets Republicans elected. Government breaking things does, so they are going to vote for broken government every time.

 

[StageLeft]

The government should almost just hire a small firm and give them binding resolution. Have them come up with this in a vacuum because the government and general public have worked themselves into such a lather of silliness.

 

[senseamp]

What the government should do is declare war on Canada, then immediately surrender.

 

[sportage]

Ps. I know personally a janitor where I work that came down with Pneumonia.
Refused to take out healthcare when he was hired.
He spent 3 weeks in the ICU, and almost died.
His hospital bill? $100,000 !!!
So guess who picked up the bill for that one? YOU and ME.

 

[werepossum]

Ps. I know personally a janitor where I work that came down with Pneumonia.
Refused to take out healthcare when he was hired.
He spent 3 weeks in the ICU, and almost died.
His hospital bill? $100,000 !!!
So guess who picked up the bill for that one? YOU and ME.

You do realize that with a single payer system you and I would have picked up the cost for this plus all his routine health care that he supposedly paid out of pocket, right? The government has almost no money not collected from you and I either directly or indirectly (via corporate taxes.) As is the hospital will turn it over to collections which will sue him for the money and garnishee his wages to recover at least part of it.

We really need to get out of this mind set that things provided by government are free; they are not free and almost always cost more than if they were furnished by ourselves.

 

[senseamp]

You do realize that with a single payer system you and I would have picked up the cost for this plus all his routine health care that he supposedly paid out of pocket, right? The government has almost no money not collected from you and I either directly or indirectly (via corporate taxes.) As is the hospital will turn it over to collections which will sue him for the money and garnishee his wages to recover at least part of it.

We really need to get out of this mind set that things provided by government are free; they are not free and almost always cost more than if they were furnished by ourselves.

At least two flaws with that argument:
1. Had he had insurance, he could go see a doctor and have a better probability of being treated before this requires $100K ICU visit. Before you get to distributing the cost, it should be a no brainer that you'd want to reduce it.
2. With individual mandate he would be required to pay for coverage to extent of his ability, so it would at least partially offset the financial risk he's passing on to insured customers. Good luck garnishing enough of a janitor's wage to pay off $100K.

 

[wwswimming]

One may be or may not be for an "Individual Mandate".
But I know one thing for dam certain. I DO NOT want to pay for WWSWIMMING's
emergency room medical bill just because WWSWIMMING refused to have insurance.
And as it stands now, that is "exactly" what has been going on with healthcare
and the uninsured. So what's so bad about fixing THAT thru reform? Remind me...

you can rest easy. you wouldn't pay for my medical bill. i would pay for it.

i would rather take the premiums that the HMO's ask for very questionable service and bank it. for my car (i.e. for a car accident), i have medical insurance.

as part of my health care, i gave up surfing because i know i can't afford the wipe-out. e.g. $7K for a helicopter ride from the beach to an emergency room.

i.e. i modified my behavior.

this approach also gives me the incentive to ask questions and keep the prices down.

a la US medical care before HMO's - not too long ago.

that provides an obvious segue to how to FIX medical care - contemplate that what we did in the 1960's & 1970's was affordable by the middle class.

but i'm not interested in debating health care solutions.

i want to know which Repub. Senators, Reps., etc. have the ability to impede the passage of Obamacare.

McConnell's name was mentioned because there was an article about Obama's upcoming meeting.

Anyway I just wondered, who are the play-makers for the Repubs ? I figure some of them sit on committees for health & human services ... something like that.

 

[Carmen813]

Many things that weren't treatable in the 1960s and 1970s are today. That's what we call progress. Unfortunately, progress costs money. Hence the problem we are in.

Going back to the good ole days of the 1960s/70s wouldn't fix it.

 

[JSt0rm]

you can rest easy. you wouldn't pay for my medical bill. i would pay for it.

You def self pwned on this one dude. This is one of the major problems with how things work now. The hospitals charge the insurance companies more for a procedure to cover the people like you who wont pay. I know you say you will but if you get cancer your "funds" will run out rather quick.

What do you do for a living? Surely someone with such wealth as to pay for any procedure works a decent job that offers healthcare?

 

[Fern]

Ps. I know personally a janitor where I work that came down with Pneumonia.
Refused to take out healthcare when he was hired.
He spent 3 weeks in the ICU, and almost died.
His hospital bill? $100,000 !!!
So guess who picked up the bill for that one? YOU and ME.

Even with health insurance, guess who picks up his $100K tab?

That's right "You and ME".

The cost doesn't dissapear because he had HI. The HI company isn't gonna 'eat it'. They are just gonna spread it around to "You and ME" via higher premiums.

High cost is the problem, we need to tackle that.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

Even with health insurance, guess who picks up his $100K tab?

That's right "You and ME".

The cost doesn't dissapear because he had HI. The HI company isn't gonna 'eat it'. They are just gonna spread it around to "You and ME" via higher premiums.

High cost is the problem, we need to tackle that.

Fern

There is a difference in degree here between people getting free healthcare, meaning the provider gets no reimbursement, and therefore must raise everyone else's costs to pay for it, and a health insurer having to pay for someone's costs and spreading that around in a risk pool. The insurer is still at least getting paid premiums in the latter case, so the risk pool isn't absorbing the entire cost.

Still, you're correct that lowering costs is the key.

- wolf

 

[JSt0rm]

Even with health insurance, guess who picks up his $100K tab?

That's right "You and ME".

The cost doesn't dissapear because he had HI. The HI company isn't gonna 'eat it'. They are just gonna spread it around to "You and ME" via higher premiums.

High cost is the problem, we need to tackle that.

Fern

Your not seeing it correctly. The cost in that incident are held by the hospital not the insurance company. They need to raise the prices to cover that. So by having uninsured people bumping into the hospitals by law costs will be raised on the rest.

 

[werepossum]

At least two flaws with that argument:
1. Had he had insurance, he could go see a doctor and have a better probability of being treated before this requires $100K ICU visit. Before you get to distributing the cost, it should be a no brainer that you'd want to reduce it.
2. With individual mandate he would be required to pay for coverage to extent of his ability, so it would at least partially offset the financial risk he's passing on to insured customers. Good luck garnishing enough of a janitor's wage to pay off $100K.

He also would have sought medical attention for the many colds that did not turn into pneumonia. Unless you are one of those who deny that people tend to use more of a valuable service if it is subsidized. . .

There are no free rides.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I hope you never arrive in the emergency room without the ability to negotiate. Whats the hospital supposed to do...treat now and hope for payment later? What kind of business model is that? I hope you keep a downpayment of cash in your pocket.

 

[numark]

Governors whose states are passing laws over-ruling the Individual Mandate - my understanding is that 30 states have such laws under consideration.

You do realize that a state law/constitutional amendment can't override a federal law, right? It's the same as a state passing a law saying "All residents of State X are exempt from federal taxation."

All those laws are, are political grandstanding tools. It allows a state governor and legislature to puff their chests for a little while while ignoring the real issues that are going on. As other people have pointed out, people get healthcare one way or another. For people without insurance, that's just called the ER.

I'm unemployed because of the economy, and I've been applying to everything under the sun, even down to the lowest jobs like cashier. I still haven't found anything. But, thanks to my pre-existing conditions, I also can't buy individual insurance from a single HMO in my state. I've tried, but all of them come back with a "no." And thanks to the wonders of my state's laws, I can't even get Medicaid.

So, if I get injured or seriously ill, who's going to pay for my treatment? That's the taxpayers (and I paid my fair share of those taxes when I was employed). Remember, it's always easier to complain from an ivory tower, but as soon as things start falling down around you, you see the basic things you took for granted.